Gillard: wrong, wrong, wrong

I had the misfortune of being in the car the other day listening to an hysterical Jon Faine ‘interview’ of Michael Smith and Mark Baker about the Gillard-AWU Slush Fund affair.  What a disgrace!  There is absolutely no doubt that  Faine is violating the ABC’s Editorial Policies – his attitudes are just sickening.  He was rude and interrupting and that was the best that can be said about his performance.

Because Faine was once upon a time a very junior lawyer, he has become the most insufferable know-it-all when it comes to what lawyers do and standards of professional and ethical conduct.  Take it from me, he knows nothing.  And the notion that a lawyer would lie or do something illegal just because a client requests it … excuse me.

It tells us everything about Faine’s background as a lawyer and NOTHING about mainstream legal practice.

I thought The Australian, via David Crowe and Joe Kelly, cut to the chase this morning with the key unaswered questions:

  • Why did Gillard not set up a file when establishing the slush fund, aka AWU Workplace Reform Association?  (Lack of attention to paperwork does not cut it; setting up files and clearing it with the other partners are critical to the operation of law firms.)
  • Was the AWU, a client of the firm, informed of the establishment of the fund?  If not, why not?
  • Why did Gillard not inform the AWU of the misuse of the slush fund once she suspected this was occurring?
  • Did Gillard misrepresent the true purpose of the AWU Workplace Reform Association to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission?  (Providing false information to government officials is potentially an offence.)
  • Why did Gillard not report matters to the police when she became aware of the fraud involved in the operation of the fund?

I think that Gillard’s use of the word wrongdoing is deliberate.

But surely she accepts that it was WRONG to be involved in the setting up of a slush fund, including using AWU in its name?  Surely she also accepts that it was WRONG to fail to open a file and to keep her fellow partners in the dark on this matter?  After all, the firm was to lose the AWU as a client.  If she did misrespresent the true purpose of the slush fund, which on her account was to help with the re-election of certain union officials, including her boyfriend, to the government authority, surely this was also WRONG.

How the import of these actions is now interpreted is a matter of personal opinion, but can anyone really deny that she was wrong, wrong, wrong.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.